Smidsy

Here's how many drivers think:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=76073

The driver emerges from the minor road and hits a cyclist, who happens to be a policeman, wearing hi-vis and with a light, who is riding along the main road:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=cb6+3ex&hl=en&ll=52.398238,0.256698&spn=0.001411,0.004128&sll=52.8382,-2.327815&sspn=11.454011,33.815918&hnear=CB6+3EX,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=52.398292,0.256592&panoid=KoeBkqzKNXQm7vldEWgh9A&cbp=12,133.73,,0,12.51

He reckons

"it is hard to see cyclists in the dark"

"To me this is just an unfortunate accident where we were both unlucky."

noting

"Eventually after a few minutes we established that he was unhurt, his bike was undamaged, and my car had a scuff on the wing mirror. "

He adds

" It frustrates me that I would be automatically considered guilty because I didn't see the cyclist. As far as I am concerned, seeing cyclists in the dark is often difficult and the human eye (and brain) aren't perfect. Accidents can happen even if a driver takes the actions of an average competent driver, and it seems unfair to brand these people criminals. And I am unhappy with how the police have handled this case, even though they may not have contravened any regulations (maybe I'll complain)."

In other words if you as a driver run over a cyclist, then it's definitely not your fault, and if he complains he's a bent copper, and it's so fucking unfair that he has to do an awareness course to improve his shit driving, having knocked someone off who had right of way, and not even getting 3 points on his licence.

And obviously the fact that his wing mirror was scuffed (probably previously, but never mind) means that both parties were 'unlucky'.